kool kitty89

The MSX was never a threat as such, and it was not a Japanese standard either, Spectravision was one of the definitive founder of the standard... it was NEC's 8 and 16-bit machines that were a real threat if NEC had chosen to push hard for an export market. (1979 PC-8000, '81 PC-8801, and '82 PC9801 -the latter 2 with progressively advanced models and the 9801 being rather like the IBM PC but a bit better in some areas -graphics and sound for one, at least as time went on). NEC has a monopoly on the 8 and 16-bit home/business computer markets from the early 80s up into the early 90s when DOS based PC clones finally pushed into the market full-force. The MSX was small potatoes in a lower-end niche/home game computer market. (between the "real" computers and game consoles -namely the famicom, albeit that had a computer/heyboard add-on early on as well) Hell, they had vertical integration on top of all that: they had their own Z80 and x86 CPU lines, PCB manufacturing, even DRAM production. (let alone various other logic chips, etc, etc -many components used by IBM, Sega, Nintendo, Atari, CBM, etc, etc) However, the C64 and PC pretty much locked up the US market. The ST probably played a much bigger role in locking out Japanese competition in Europe though. Tramiel did push for games though, he was depending on it (regardless of whether that was his passion), the delays and other problems were as harmful to computers as they were to the games (it not more so) and was a result of Warner's sloppy management of the split. (TTL management did a great job considering that and it would have been a miracle to hold it all together with the mess Warner made) It shouldn't have been like that though: Warner should have promoted a normal smooth transition of Atari consumer to Atari Corp, laid out all the properties and assets TTL would get and what would go to Atari Games (and how any licensing would be arranged). Morgan's management should have transitioned over carefully to keep reorganization going and possibly adjust it for Tramiel's plans (preferably keep Morgan and some other upper management around for the transition -if not in permanent positions at Atari Corp). The 7800 would have launched on schedule, the Jr would have gone more smoothly, the A8 line would have pushed ahead as planned, Amiga would have been sued more quickly and aggressively and the plans for Micky (and RBP/ST) may have been shifted over to the Rainbow chipset (still working with the nice UNIX based OS and GUI Atari Inc had), etc, etc. Better organization would mean selective downsizing and much less lost (just as Morgan was pushing for), much sooner profits and expansion on the market, more funds to work with in general for better marketing and R&D, etc, etc. (it was a bit late to push it, but they may have even been able to find a chip vendor to partner and eventually merge with -Honeywell halted Synertek's operations in '85 due to problems related to the video game crash, perhaps Atari Corp could have been in a position to take advantage of that situation even though money would still likely have been pretty tight -strong sales of the 2600, 7800, and A8 in late '84 and '85 along with promoted developments of new 16-bit machines may have given them the clout they needed to negotiate such with Honeywell -it may have involved taking on some debt tied to Synertek operations, but could have paid off in the long run -hell, if it involved taking on overstock of unsold chips, that may have been even better -especially since Synertek had a massive percentage of their operations tied to producing custom chips for Atari Inc along with 2nd sourcing MOS CPUs and support chips, so any such inventory could have actually been useful to Atari Corp) I think the bigger issue was limited marketing all around. By the time marketing was fairly decent (if limited), they were pushing that angle AFIK. (Atari Inc's original campaign plans had pushed that as well iirc) Commodore basically did the same thing. It didn't take long for Jay Miner to exit and the whole "Commodore-Amiga, Inc." to be swallowed up into the rest of mediocre Commodore. They should have spun off MOS (or at least the engineering segment) into a separate R&D company, or at least a definitive advanced technology R&D division of MOS/CSG (maybe a subsidiary, maybe a separate company with controlling interest from CBM, but in either case, a reasonable amount of freedom to develop new tech -sort of like Atari's ATG). Amiga should have then been folded into that R&D division/subsidiary/spin-off for a rather formidable combined force of engineering resources. (plus coupled with direct access to MOS/CSG for fast turnaround of LSI prototypes, etc, etc) OTOH, if their in-house R&D division had been successful enough, they wouldn't have really had interest in Amiga anyway. (they could have had better plans already in-house, like a 16-bit successor to the 6502 but a better overall design than the '816, a fully compatible successor to the C64 -and a clean, evolutionary upgrade vs the hacked together C128) But even in '85, they had every reason to shift that and finally push MOS's engineering resources like that (in a dedicated technology division -or a whole spin-off company) and fold Amiga into that. (had they done that, we might be thinking how much management improved after jack left, but no, nothing like that happened -and thanks to Warner's botched split, we also don't know how Tramiel might have managed Atari Inc's ATG with a proper transition tying into Morgan's reorganization) Hell, CBM lost a chunk of their own engineering staff when Jack left and formed TTL.

Why did Atari need to boost their image in the computer market? Wasn't the goal to sell computers? Changing your brand from a games company to a computer company costs money, something that Atari at the time did not have. If Nintendo decided to enter the US computer market today do you really think they would use the name Nintendo? I can see the press release now... Atari needed to boost their image back in 1980 onward, they missed out on so much in the US and Europe/UK with the 8-bit line, but that's just one among many problems in the Warner years. They should have been pushing for a balanced computer and games market from then on out and also pushed for a range of computers from the low-end consumer machine up to high-end business. (as it was they had machines that kicked the ass of everything on the market aside from the TRS-80 model 2 in the high-end business role and the Apple II's expandability -and existing software of the Apple, PET, and TRS-80 model 1) Removing the Apple-II style expansion from the 800 was a bad idea though. (not even PBI type expansion) The 800 also probably should have been a pure computer that did away with the expensive and bulky RF shielding (monitor only, FCC class A) and multi-board design in favor of somethign closer to the Apple II with a much more consolidated main board, lower price than the 800, let alone Apple II. (and included apple II expansion ports plus a mid-range model with single port for an external expansion module option and finally the low-end 400 -and a revised series for Europe dropping shielding on all models and modified form factors -and greater emphasis on casettes among other things like 3rd party and homebrew development) But marketing was the bigger issue all around for the A8 line in the US and even Europe. The ST got most of that right except for lack of higher end models from the start, lack of built-in expansion support from the start, and marketing. (which was limited by funding, though also much better in Europe -but also much easier to manage due to the smaller nature and much denser population in European countries) It depends on what you consider to be the "true" Atari. The XE was developed by TTL/Atari Corp. and the 2600jr (2100) by Atari Inc. Nope only the case and the keyboard was a TTL design, everything else was based of the XL-F apparently (or if you want to get real technical the 4/800, as thats where the atari 8bit hardware originated) So they outsourced the PCB design of the XE computers? AFIK it was in development in '83, but not yet ready for release. (unless it was one of the things halted by Morgan) It was planned for release in fall of '84 along with the 7800 and Amiga based console. (and 1090XL among other things) The JAN ASIC (VCS on a chip) was also prototyped by '83, but didn't go into full production until well after the release of the 2600 Jr. (probably due to back stock of TIA if not 6532s and 6507s as well -and/or problems with producing the ASIC, either of those situations may also have been the case for why CGIA was never used -ie may have been too many ANTIC+GTIA chips left over or they may have had production problems with CGIA after the split)

Yes, but it's in Europe where the ST was really and truly a massive success from business to home computing and gaming. (in fact, for a time, Atari Corp was diverting stock to Europe at the expense of US shortages iirc: a bold move, but a smart one since the US market was more niche vs the EU market where they really had respectable mass market business -a shame they didn't push that with the Jaguar) Yep, and if Atari Inc had been more aggressive marketing it, not only would Atari have been better known as a computer company (or rather the broad, multidivision company they truly were and NOT just a game company), but they'd also have had far greater success in market saturation with the A8 line. (of course, they needed to cater to the US and EU/UK markets separately) Yes, and Atari WAS already a computer company, it just hadn't marketed that side of things well enough under Atari Inc to have it definitively ingrained in the public. (one of Warner's shortcomings) And Atari DID have a few million computer users out there by '85 and enough people who at least knew of the computers to build a usable market onto. (though not nearly as strong as it should have been: Atari should have had a reputation ahead of Apple and Tandy at that point, though probably not IBM -maybe above Commodore as well, though it would also have depended how CBM responded to Atari's competition -CBM also made the mistake in losing their early niche in education, scientific, and business computing from the PET line: they should have held onto that while going forward with the lower to mid range consumer market -the C64 was initially a higher end consumer model at launch, granted, and much more so in Europe where it was considered a true high end personal computer) The PCJr could have been a very good product from IBM, but they screwed it up in so many ways... Tandy did it right, though they limited themselves with Radioshack distribution only. (had IBM had the Tandy 1000's minimum standards with the PCJr -128k minimum, 1 floppy drive minimum, full ISA motherboard and internal expansion, normal peripheral ports -aside from the tandy joysticks, and a DOS GUI -albeit rudimentary- on top of all that, the PCJr could have been a much different machine -more expensive in the minimal form factor, but also a much better value and probably 1/2 the price of the Mac in '84, probably even less compared to 128k Mac models vs the lower-end 64k units) A successful PCJr would have bolstered the Tandy 1000 as well (and pushed for other clones of the standard). But I'm just repeating what I said above. IBM failed to offer a definitive wide range of PCs in that sense (low end consumer up to mid range to high end to high end professional to workstation), though as I also mentioned, others made the same mistakes. (ST and Amiga both did that, Apple failed to make low-end Apple IIs -even though they could have undercut CBM with their simple and cheap hardware even without vertical integration, Apple failed again with the Mac -more or less, Atari came close with the A8 but fell short in hardware and more so in marketing, Atari Corp didn't offer higher end ST models or desktop form factor models until later, CBM shifted its market position in odd ways from the PET to VIC to C64 to 128 to Amiga, etc, etc) ....and I am actually pretty used to the XE/ST keyboards. So what? What's your point? You think XE/ST keyboards totally suck, and I think your new Mac keyboard totally sucks. You've made it plain you don't like the ST keyboard, and not everybody is going to agree with you, to that magnitude. Who cares?And I'm pretty sure I can get used to the Atari 400's keyboard, but that doesn't mean it's not pretty crappy to use as well. (looks cool though, and it obviously had a purpose for cost saving -a shame they didn't make the keys domed at least though, like some other membrane buttons -intellivision keypad and such) If that was the case, PC would be the best computers ever made, bar none. (unless you look to Japan or Europe, then the ST, Amiga, and NEC's 8 and 16-bit computers were the best ever at the time -albeit NEC's Z80 and X86 machines were pretty PC-like in some respects) The Mac wasn't cheap compared to any direct competition, not even lower-end PC clones. And none of those machines were cheap, only 8-bits were cheap at the time, and even then "cheap" is relative. (the ZX Spectrum in 1983 wasn't even cheap, relatively speaking, unless you compared it to the top end 8-bits and 16-bit machines but it was relatively cheap for a 48k home computer at the time -or even in '82- but not cheap in general terms) If you wanted an affordable computer in the mid 80s, you got an 8-bit machine, even in the US. If you had a bit more money to spend on it (ie approaching $1000 at the time), you could push into the lower cost 16-bit machines along with the necessary accessories. (at the time, the Apple II or even TRS-80 were still viable platforms -the TRS-80 Model 2 still had some relatively decent performance in the business role as well at that point, and some decent expandability on top of that) In Europe, that trend would persist into the late 80s, but by that time in the US, anything save the low-end home market had switched to 16-bit (and 32-bit) PCs and a couple other computers. (Amiga was there, but a bit niche, and the ST was even more niche by that point iirc -in Europe, Amiga was just starting to finally compete on the level of the ST towards the end of the 80s -1988 was the start of that) I used a Mac Plus (I think it was) on the school newspaper, in high school. Yeah, it was really good for that, along with the Laserwriter I. I distinctly remember standing next to a pallet of Laserwriters at the computer store in 1985 with a price tag of $9995, and I don't remember what the Mac was, but it was not cheap, either. A properly adjusted ST with mono monitor should have had square pixels as well (with a bit of a vertical boarder) and significantly higher resolution: hell, even on normal PAL TVs, you'd have nearly perfect square pixels in 320x200 mode. (that's oen thing the Amiga couldn't do early on, only interlace if you wanted more than 200-256 lines -the latter only in the flickerier 50 Hz PAL resolutions) It probably had a much bigger impact on Amiga sales. The Mac sort of had its own niche that was not goign to be too heavily impacted by competition (though also fundamentally limited the market saturation of the machine), and at the prices they were asking, it wasn't going anywhere in Europe either. (the ST and Amiga closed the gap on that one for sure) Apple made the same mistake with the Mac as the Apple II: they had a pretty simple, low cost piece of hardware on their hands (or at least potentially low-cost with added integration -the Apple II got that with the IIe chipset), but they never pushed for a low-end range that could have dominated the market. (Atari Corp made the mistake of not pushing for a higher end desktop form factor early on) The Mac should have been able to undercut the ST's price point just as the Apple II could have undercut the C64 (probably close to the CoCo's price point if not cheaper). They could have covered the low-end market up into the hing end market with a variety of form factors beyond the compact desktop models. (a consolidated single board design in a pizza box for factor would have been nice) Let alone offering models with general expansion, built-in parallel hard drives, etc, etc. I think you could argue the single 8-bit DMA sound channel was better than the ST's PSG, but there's a lot of trade-offs. (you could do software MOD and sample playback with much less overhead -DMA loading but still software mixing and scaling- but you wouldn't have the option of pure PSG use with negligible CPU overhead -you could stream PCM with next to no overhead, or loop fixed pitch samples, but that's pretty limited especially since you've got to use CPU resource to drive all graphics operations aside from spitting the bitmap framebuffer out to the screen) Interestign that the MAC actually had 2 channel stereo DMA from day 1, but one of the DMA sound channels was sacrificed to drive the square wave for the drive motor. (probably should have chucked in a YM2149/AY and made use of the parallel ports as well -or an AY8912 if you only needed 8 I/O lines, or the sound only AY8913 -all AYs have 3 separate sound channel output lines too, so you could have one driving the floppy with 2 others wired to the sound output, wired to stereo if you wanted ) Have you ever used an ST before? Windows didn't eclipse TOS 1.0 in functionality and ease until Windows 95, 10 years after the ST debuted. OS/2 would be a better example, or GEM on PC for that matter. Yes, but I still don't see either company pushing for that, and in any cases there's much bigger problems independent of those that meant for other missed opportunities: Commodore's generally weaker management and marketing after Jack left, both companies failing to push for a licensed standard with their hardware, and both failing to push more into the PC clone market in the US when they had the chance. (CBM had the vertical integration to do so, but their PC designs were actually weaker in general -and poorer values as far as I can see- than Atari's PC-1 and later PC-3/4/5/ABC, of course at some point CBM's vertical integration would be moot and they'd have to opt for off the shelf hardware as well -or a mix of things, like in-house video and sound cards plugged into a generic motherboard and generic case with CBM branding -Atari had a rather nice ASIC in '87 that supported CGA+MDA+Hercules+EGA and a unified monitor port that worked with all of those monitors -rather like ATi's EGA Wonder cards, and it may not have been a bad idea to keep that ASIC but switch to it being on an ISA card along with the generic motherboards of the later machines -maybe even sell the standalone card, assuming they hadn't licensed it from ATi or such with specific limits on use) Both Commodore and Atari Corp declined after Tramiel left though. Whether or not CBM would have definitively doen better is a broader argument, but it's really hard to see him making many of the mistakes Sam did. (and CBM definitely needed better management regardless of if that was needed from the likes of Jack or someone else) WTF? The 68010 wasn't a very good value and wasn't nearly as widely licensed as the 68000, the same problem with all of motorola's later 68k arch chips as well. (a shame no 3rd party vendors opted to extend the architecture separately unlicensed like NEC, Cyrix, or -to some extent- IBM and AMD with x86 -even faster rated 68ks would have been great -ie 25-32 MHz and beyond, let alone full expansions of the architecture) The 68010 was no more 32-bit than the 68000, it just made a small change to the ISA that made it a little closet to the 020, but still had the conflict of the 24-bit address bus that some programs wouldn't like. (both issues could be patched pretty easily, so it wasn't a major issue -and was only an issue to begin with due to sloppier programmers, just as other compatibility issues formed with due to developers not complying with the official development docs) Hell, simply pushing for 68020 models early on would have given devs a wakeup call to make sure things stayed compatible. (and offerign 16 MHz models eraly on would also mean less timing sensitive software that would run too fast) Not if it made it more expensive . . . this came up in my 5.25" floppy thread a while back. However, they should have added it as an option from day 1 and had it standard on all higher end models -ie the desk tops they should have had from day 1 as well. (maybe even all STF models too -or at least have them clearly marked to avoid confusion of whether you had a SS or DS drive) They would have been too expensive . . . having 020 models is great, but should have been retained alongside the 68k versions. (and definitely push for 16 MHz 68k versions across the board ASAP -and discontinue the 8 MHz models) Adding a fast RAM bus like the A2000 and 500 did would be pretty significant as well. (allow 16 MHz 68ks and 020s with 0 wait states) Let alone faster 68000 models . . . if they were available. (I wonder if they could have had any influence on pushing their vendors to provide higher speed grades -especially since it would mean more business with those vendors vs motorola's exclusive 32-bit models, same for Amiga) Hell, with commodity 120 ns FMP DRAM of the late 80s (what the lynx used) on a separate bus, you should be able to have a 25 MHz 68000 with zero wait states (so long as there's a latch to allow memory to take advantage of the 68k's slower bus accesses -doesn't need data on the bus until the end of the 3rd cycle of a memory request iirc), or 100 ns RAM for 30 MHz, 80 ns for 37.5 MHz (or 40 MHz with some wait states), etc, etc. (even with wait states you still accelerate some internal operations of the CPU, so also significant for machines with slower RAM -hence why even an ST stuck with interleaved DMA could have a boost from an overclock) Sure, higher speed grades would be more expensive, but should have been far cheaper than the full 32-bit options. (and the performance of the 32 bit versions was often less than 2x clock for clock, though that depended on use of the cache wait states, etc, etc) There were 3rd parties regrading CPUs close to the 30 MHz range, but that's not the same as a mass market vendor doing such. (granted, Atari could do some tests to see if a very high percentage of new 16/16.7 MHz rated CMOS models were stable at much higher speeds and take a bit of a hit on the occasional unstable example -or shift that down to a lower-end machine depending on whether they re-graded the CPUs themselves or assumed they'd be mainly OK) Hell a 26.6 MHz 68000 would have been really significant in the Jaguar. (let alone a 39.9 MHz one -which would still have close to zero wait states in fast page mode, though 26.6 would make more sense to the regrading option with normal 16 MHz models) Plenty of other areas to upgrade too. (scrolling for all shifters prior to the blitter's release -which would be limtied to higher end models initially-, DMA sound plus YM2203, more bitplanes and extended addressing of the SHIFTER, perhaps dual playfield modes with separate scroll planes, etc, etc) Hell, take the STe, swap in a YM2203 and 16 MHz 68k (with optional fastRAM), and dual 4-bit playfields would have been enough to offer some significant advantages over the A500 of the time. (alongside higher end models being pushed) One of the issues with the TT030 was lack of lower end models... they should have had 16 and 24/25 MHz 020/EC020 models as well as 16 MHz 68000 models. (all with blitters, especially 16 MHz MEGA STE type blitters -let alone faster 68k models if they could get a source for those) That didn't happen until 1995 and only mattered for 3D games... and only for a handful of cases (like Quake) early on since A. a big chunk of the market had 386s and 486SX machines, and B. many cases favored faster games on pure fixed point math. (floating point performance would have to beat integer performance considerably to favor that -albeit some cases like quad renderers made that more extreme, btu triangles are not nearly as troublesome with fixed point math) In that sense though, a fast (relatively low cost) fixed point DSP would be far more significant than a FPU coprocessor. Not just for 3D stuff, but also scaling, rotation, and general blitting operations as well. (though dedicated hardware would be faster still, a DSP would be much faster than a CPU of similar cost -and very nice coupled with a blitter on top of that) That's one nice thing about the falcon that didn't get exploited very much. The 56000 should have been very capable at accelerating 3D as well as 2D scaling, ray-casting height maps, etc, etc. (many of which have no use for an FPU, and n many cases also weren't accelerated by common 3D accelerators either -the Jaguar's GPU is a DSP/CPU hybrid of sorts that's more like modern GPUs in some respects -along with the OPL and Blitter logic- and was thus very flexible, like a DSP that was programmable more like a CPU) A lower end Motorla or TI DSP (or related graphics oriented coprocessor) might have been nice earlier on, let alone some possible cheaper offerings from overseas. A custom version of Doom using the DSP of the Falcon would probably be pretty competitive with mid-range PCs of the time. Yeah, I'm definitely interested in seeing the full details that Curt and Marty have on that. (a real shame Warner threw it away with the mess they created with the split: Tramiel might have been able to salvage the situation better than he did, but they seem to have done pretty well given the circumstances -could have been far worse for sure; it still doesn't change the fact that Warner should have been much more prudent about the organization of a real transition with the split -they shot themselves in the foot, let alone TTL/Atari Corp, with that move) Atari was much better known as a computer comapny than a game company in Europe. Their arcade and (especially) console stuff hadn't been nearly as popular and they failed to market the A8 very well in the Warner years, so Atari wasn't even that well known at all until Atari Corp pushed in. (the surge of price cut 800XLs was the first stage of that followed by the ST and XE -but it was too late for the A8 to really compete with the Spectrum and C64 -and to lesser extent Amstrad) Sure, they were known for video games, but it hadn't been massive like in the US. (hence why Europe wasn't much help in supporting Atari Inc after the NA crash in '83: consoles weren't huge sellers in Europe and Atari had failed to market their 8-bits properly)

Because the technology is worthless without the people who know how to maintain and enhance it. I know that's a very modern view, but that's something that used to really bug me about the corporate market. They seemed to think that technology somehow existed in a vacuum. Yet technology can easily be best described as an expression of a person or team's knowledge and understanding. Taking the expression without the source will give the tech a very short shelf-life, indeed! Not historically helpful in the slightest, but I needed to get that off my chest. I think it depends on the circumstances too, and how well the technology makes the transition to th new team. Atari Inc would have been doing just that with MICKEY, they would have full documentation and schematics (and presumably some consultation from the original engineers), but not have direct access to the Amiga staff as such, and anything going forward would be with Atari Inc staff. (they already had an OS in development intended for their 16-bit machines and/or the MICKY console.computer design) It really would depend on the hardware in question and how the transition took place with the licensed chipset. In any case, Commodore had many of the problems you mention in spite of retaining the Amiga staff (or much of it at least), but that was due to issues beyond what you mention. (more due to poor decisions from upper management) But back to the cirsumstances for Tramiel: it really would make sense to avoid investing in Amiga as such given how much else TTL still needed to do to even consider brining a product to the mass market. (and investing in in-house development could indeed be the more cost effective option in that respect -hell, if they'd continued to evolve the existing ST/RGB hardware immediately after the first production models were finalized, they probably could have pushed up to something more in the Amiga's range of capabilities -with trade-offs- relatively quickly -maybe by some time in '86, and it wouldn't have to focus on the same design philosophy as the Amiga but could focus on its own development path -maybe not even push for the blitter right away but simple V/H scroll registers instead, maybe extend to 8 bitplanes and expand the SHIFTER's address range and color depth -logic for dual playfields with independent scrolling would be significant too -logic for true packed pixel modes would probably come later but would be great for the time too, maybe a faster CPU and wait state mechanism to allow more shared access with other bus masters, DMA sound -perhaps simpler like the STe- and a YM2203 replacing the YM2149, etc, etc) OTOH, Atari Inc itself was an incredible value in spite of the risks of taking it on, better in every way than Amiga . . . except Warner diminished that value considerably with the sloppy split that ruined so many possibilities.

You do know that the NES was complete and in the market (as Famicom) before the MARIA chip was ever finished, right? It was in Japan as the Famicom in 1983 and Atari was reviewing it before the second revision of MARIA was ever completed. Yep, the 7800 is slightly newer, though they were in development very close to the same time in any case. (the 7800 also had MARIA tied down to a low-cost emphasiszed design that also had to be VCS compatible, and not with a truly comprehensive evolutionary design, but a bit tacked on in some respects; the Famicom was also extremely cost optimized -really tiny motherboard with very high degree of integration among other things- but it did go the rather costly route of dual cart buses and thus required a MUCH larger cart connector as well as at least 2 ROM chips -on separate buses with separate address decoding- for every single game, though that did offer a pretty good degree of flexibility and avoided the limitations of a shared main bus or the overhead of loading graphics data into dedicated video RAM -let alone the cost added to the base unit, though it would be a good investment over more expensive games; granted, another option would be using a single bus with fast memory and interleaved DMA, but that would again add to cost for ROMs though less so in the long run compared to the NES -faster ROMs would get cheaper, but the added board space and complexity of dual buses wouldn't as much; with dedicated RAM you could also decompress graphics when loading into RAM -if not doing so on the fly) Hmm, actually, one interesting option that I don't think was ever used would be to have dedicated CPU work RAM on a separate bus and video have DMA to ROM and the main bus normally and feed code to the CPU as needed. (similar to dedicated video memory, but requiring much less RAM to do so; hmm, maybe a hybrid of that and the 7800's holey DMA with the CPU able to access the main bus when MARIA wasn't -and getting waits otherwise- but also able to work in RAM in parallel with MARIA DMA, or avoid waits entirely and only allow the CPU to access the main bus in vblank -wait states would be more flexible, but also add to complexity of the design; you could have 2 kB for main/video on the same bus as ROM and 2 kB for dedicated CPU work RAM with the same RAM chips as the 7800 -but with the added complexity of logic for 2 buses) Yes, except they never "dusted off" anything, they were constantly trying to get the system out but with different roadblocks. (albeit the strong 2600 sales in mid/late 1985 did help boost things a bit -but Katz was already onboard earlier in the year, brought in after the 7800 dispute was finally settled) The A8 computers had been active the entire time, so nothing had been dusted off as such there even. (a shame they didn't push somthing like the XEGS back in '85 -or maybe even by the end of '84- as an alternative for the 7800 -in limbo at that point-, or simply offer a gaming bundle of the 600XL before an actual game system form factor model was released -or a plain 600XL with a cheaper keyboard- . . . that could be fairly foolproof too since they could position it as a gaming/entry level computer and thus not be in direct conflict with the 7800 if it did end up being released -plus it would cater to the more computer friendly retail market during the crash and promote software support for the A8 line in general, a significant back library with existing stockpiles of cartridges, and existign stockpiles of computer components in general -actually, if the latter was significant enough, that would explain why they didn't introduce CGIA or push for a cost-cut POKEY derivative: they simply may have never used up the old stock of ANTIC+GTIA+POKEY chips left from Atari Inc, though if that was the case, they also could/should have matched or undercut the C64's price point with the 800XL/65XE since there was nothing to lose in terms of producing custom chips)

I already sent a PM, but depending on the price, I might be interested in the 1200XL as well.

I don't think he ever HAD a chance to buy up Amiga. The deal was with Warner/Atari. (1) When Amiga heard Warner was dumping Atari, this would have scared them off, enough to make them look for a more financially-secure suitor. (2) When they heard it was Tramiel at Atari, they figured (by reputation) he'd take the chips and can the engineers, not wanting to pay them. Put those together, and I don't think he had the chance. I'm sure if he DID have the chance, he WOULD HAVE purchased them; he'd have the superior technology and Commodore wouldn't have anything good for the 16-bit generation. No, no, I was talking about well before Tramiel bought Atari Consumer, I mean months earlier when TTL was looking around for additional resources and such. (I'm not sure if it's still accurate, but wiki -quoted from Atari Museum iirc- has a short summary of that basically stating that Amiga wanted to sell the company as a whole, but Tramiel was mainly interested in buying/licensing the chipset -and Amiga wasn't interested in licensing to yet another investor) My comment was in the context of Tramiel going ahead without Atari at all, building up TTL in other ways. Wgungfu addressed the other issues in your post, so I'll leave it at that. And this is one of the cases where I have to question his strategy... It is not just RJ who states Jack Tramiel point blank said that he was interested in acquiring Amiga's tech but would can all of its staff. Multiple Amiga people said the very same thing. What rational business person would say something like that? Unless hindered by the agreement to purchase the company, you buy the company and then fire the staff. You don't tell them ahead of time before serious negotiations begin! That's a total WTF and it is a main reason why Amiga went running to Commodore to save them. I believe Jack Tramiel may be Jack Tramiel's own worst enemy, not the late Irving Gould nor any of us irate old school Atari owners. That would be at TTL, well before Jack bout Atari consumer and before Amiga entered into negotiations with CBM. (by the time Jack bought Atari, Amiga had merged with CBM -or was about to- already) The only real missed opportunity for such an offer (ie not the NES, and not the Amiga -both lost prior to Atari Corp's existence), would be the offer for North American distribution of Sega's Mega Drive in 1988. (Katz favored it but Tramiel and Rosen couldn't agree on terms -and there were many other trade-offs from Atari Corp's perspective at the time, the biggest plus would be Sega's software support though) OTOH, if Katz had still left and Sam taken over, the MD/Genesis may have gotten driven into the ground rather than hit big like it did under Sega of America. (just as Atari Corp drove itself into the ground under Sam -and without Katz for that matter) At that time he already had his engineering staff (via Commodore) and was traveling up and down California to different companies looking for possible technology to leverage. Remember, Amiga was a nobody and a nobody on very shaky financial ground at that. From his perspective, why would he need to start trying to pump something up when all he was interested in was technology to fold in? The bang for the buck was not there compared to say....doing the same thing 2 months later with Atari where he got a huge catalog of IP, a distribution network, manufacturing, back stock to sell, etc. Yep, and not only that, he was also getting a lot of in-house tech from Atari Inc . . . or at least he should have if Warner hadn't made a huge mess in the transition. (Atari's Rainbow chipset may have even been superior overall to Amiga's -not just in performance, but perhaps actual value -I haven't seen any added details, so that's total speculation on my part, and could also depend on additional consolidation over the 1983 design -2 years would give a lot of advantages in newer manufacturing processes, let alone shifting more towards surface mounted packages like LCCs and QFPs -even the 1983 CGIA prototype was in a 68 pin LCC) Hell, not just the hardware, but the pretty powerful OS and GUI Atari Inc was developing (somewhat ambiguously) for MICKY and a possible Rainbow (etc) based system. (was Rainbow/silver/gold+AMY the only chipset, or were there others -ie were Gaza and Sierra to use the same chips in different loadouts? So, technically speaking, Atari Inc would have been an even better value that it was (better in pretty much every way than Amiga) had Warner not deflated that value (so to speak) with the mess created in the split. He was just interested in buying the technology, not the company and all the baggage that came with it. Yes, and he'd still have to put more resources into establishing a distribution network, manufacturing, etc, etc. (let alone a brand name) In that respect, TTL was probably better off sticking it out alone with the RGB design than investing in Amiga and the related risks. (the risk/reward with Atari was much better, though again, it was a lot less than it should have been because of Warner's mistakes) Hell, as I mentioned before, TTL could actually have been a rather positive change for Atari consumer with a proper transition: sure, they'd lose Warner's direct connections and such, but they'd also be completely cutting away all the bureaucratic red tape associated with it (that Morgan was still trying to break through). If Morgan (or at least his reorganization plans) had been properly transitioned over smoothly with Atari consumer to Atari Corp (with the necessary modifications necessary to cater to the change in plans), things could have worked out quite favorably.

Pac-Man was included later, as I understand it, as a direct response to the Colecovision using Donkey Kong as a pack-in When the 5200 was released, Breakout was the game, and they were all four-port. Later, Atari found a fix for the four ports (to be compatible with the vcs adapter). They fixed and released the remaining 4-port back-stock. However, they had started using Pac-Man as the pack in game by then. Damm, that means I had a rare atari. I wish we hadn't given it away. I don't think so, a lot of 4 ports models should have come with Pac Man, just the launch models (and slightly later) would be Breakout. How can you say he tried to kill off the Atari ST? , Atari under Jack gave us the Atari ST. Not just that, but everything else in that statement is wrong too, and corrected 2 posts further down: No, no, and no. Never killed it off, did not hold off the 7800 and did not release it in response to the NES. All myths that have already been disproven and well discussed in these forums.

Not the best POKEY chiptune I've heard, but absolutely the best 4-bit PCM I've hard in any POKEY tune and the best compromise of PCM with synth on POKEY. (maybe the best use of 4-bit PCM I've heard on any platform ) I wonder if it kept the overhead low enough to allow that music engine to be used in-game.

Misforecasted is probably more accurate. I think they thought it would sell even more than it did so sales did not 'meet expectations', but the expectations were ludicrously high. Even today, a 7 million selling game on a single console is pretty rare in the grand scheme of things. The same could be said of ET too. It's remembered as a bomb, but not always reported as having sold quite a lot of units too. But again, misforecasted. Yep, they should have tempered it a lot more, especially since they pushed it in such a rushed manner. They could have produced a couple million carts (if that) and followed it up with a proper "Pac Man Deluxe" using something more like Fry's inteded full sprite multiplexer. (would have been nice if they pushed for arcade colors too, something that was restricted even from the VCS version of Ms Pac Man -but not 5200/A8/7800- and also would have made the flicker less problematic -use of high contrast ghost colors and a black background could look better, more so with a proper per-line flicker based multiplexer a la Ms Pac Man) Probably still no intermissions, but perhaps proper start music, better sound, and more animation. (again, an 8k cart) Especially if they pushed the deluxe version by the 1982 holiday season. The initial Pac Man was a decent game on its own, but a poor conversion of the arcade game. (thus many people who had no idea what the Arcade game was weren't disappointed -though I think Space Invaders would still have been a better pack-in to push at the time, at least as an option along with Combat -aging and no fun without 2 players, but good fun multiplayer) ET was a different issue with Atari put in a bad position by Warner forcing an extremely expensive (tens of millions) license and condition of a 1982 holiday release. They overproduced it as that was the minimum number felt to be able to generate profit after the high license overhead, but in hindsight they should have been more conservative and eaten the loss with no more than 1 million carts produced (preferably more like 1/2 that) and not only having a much more modest loss, but also the potential to recoup that (and then some) with follow-up ET licensed games that were more polished. (like ET Phone Home on the A8) They're monsters (per the Japanese description iirc), and I believe that cutscene is not supposed to be ripping the "sheet" but rather ripping a chunk of fur off the monster.

When IBM entered the market with the $700 PCjr, it was Tramiel that said more people will spend $200 on a home computer than $700. He was right then and he was also right when he introduced his own $700+ home computer. Yes, but the ST was a $700 computer at an incredible value for what you got . . . (and a total package with floppy drive and 640x400 monitor). Also remember the C64 WAS A $600 machine at launch, even in the bare-bones package. (let alone with a floppy drive and monitor) It wasn't until late 1983 that it dropped close to $200 for the standalone computer. And yes, IBM totally f*cked up with the PCJr, not so much the price, but the feature set for that price: cheap-ish, too small and odd IR keyboard, no internal expansion and proprietary external expansion vs ISA, and proprietary peripheral ports on top of that. (the 64k was pretty weak for a baseline as well, though the Mac was the same way) Tandy got it right though: if IBM had made a range of PCJr based machines on par with the Tandy 1000 at similar (or lower -via vertical integration and higher volumes) price point, it could have been an awesome competitor in the mid-range home/business computer market. They should have had a 7.16 MHz 8088, a 5.25" DD floppy drive, and 128k as the baseline standard though, more like Tandy. The composite monitor was OK since it was near RGB clarity in grayscale modes. (colorburst disabled for luminance only) They probably should have pushed for at least a rudimentary DOS GUI out of the box as Tandy did with Deskmate 1.0 running on top of DOS 2.1. (pushing for 8-bit DMA sound as Tandy did in the late 80s would also have been very significant -Tandy added a 48 kHz mono DMA PCM channel on top of the simple PSG and PC speaker channel) They could have pushed for even more heavily integrated lower-end console form factors as well. (more integtated and compact than Tandy's EX and HX line even) If IBM had done that, they probably would have rolled the PCJr video and sound standards into later full PC models as well. It probably would have been more expensive than the PCJr with the bar raised for the base standard, but the value would be better, and IBM's size and internal advantages should have allowed them to undercut the 1,199 price Tandy had as well. (I believe that was the price for a total system too and may have been for the 256 k model -though I think the bar was raised to 256k minimum pretty soon after the '84 launch) And again, a range of machines, not just one machine: from low-end console models to full big-box desktops. (maybe push an all-in-one {PET/Mac/PS/2 model 25 like machine as well to directly position against the Mac -larger color display, better keyboard, decent onboard sound, rudimentary GUI running over DOS, PC compatibility, and a highly competitive price though a weaker CPU and OS -both of the latter would vary with higher end models and depending hoe IBM evolved the OS/GUI -OS/2 would come later of course) No, Atari needed to boost their image in the computer market: that was a huge mistake on Warner's part. The very fact that Atari wasn't known as a computer company almost as much as a game company by 1984 is a testament of their faults in managing the excellent 8-bit computer line. They should have been known for having a powerful, versatile range of 8-bit home computers good for games up to some professional/business applications. (hardware wise it really was the best 8-bit computer on the market all around in the late 70s to early 80s -even with advantages and trade-offs with the much newer C64 from the faster CPU to the broader palette to the MUCH faster disk drive, etc) The TRS-80 model II was superior as a high-end science/business machine with 64 kB standard, built-in high capacity (for the time) 8" floppy drive, 80 column text, 4 MHz Z80 and CP/M support, but had a price tag to match very much like the later PC. (albeit it wasn't marketed as broadly as the PC either) Not to mention they'd have lot the huge market they had in Europe on top of that. (the dominant 16-bit computer on the market up to the Amiga getting an edge at the end of the 80s -for a number of reasons, though Sam's management seems to have made things a lot worse) They could have had a very strong market with the 8-bits in Europe for that matter, and probably much longer than in the US (given what happened with the C64), so that was a massive blunder as well. And the ST istelf probably wouldn't have existed if there was a proper transition from Atari Inc vs Warner's craptacular management of the split. (you'd probably have derivatives of Atari's powerful 16-bit custom chipsets and a multi-tasking UNIX based OS with GUI) But as it was, if you ask anyone who grew up in UK/Europe in the late 80s, they'd almost certainly address Atari in the context of the ST. (massively popular for business, music, games, etc, etc -initially mainly professional stuff, but more and more games as it came down in price up to the point where the Amiga got more attractive following the price jump of the ST from 299 to 399 due to DRAM prices and CBM's match of the A500 dropping from 499 to 399 all in 1988 -made worse with Jack stepping down at that point and Sam's weaker management therafter)

Yes, once they missed their chance with the 3200, it would have been pointless to push on with it. (I'm not sure it even reached full hardware prototyping -maybe a wirewrap, almost certainly not any LSI stuff) I think the 3200 (or similar) would have made sense anywhere up to '83 if it meant having no 5200 (maybe even later), though by that point it had better have STIA merged with ANTIC and some additional consolidation. (perhaps 16k of DRAM like the 5200/600XL and with embedded interface logic to give a further advantage over SRAM) Though, again, from that stand point, they could have gone with a quick-fix hack back in '80/81 to cut out some R&D time by dropping STIA in favor of slapping GTIA on board along with TIA, ANTIC, RIOT, and Sally (6502C) plus added SRAM a la 3200/7800 or DRAM a la A8/5200 (the latter would be better in the long run -especially for A8 ports). Have provisions for some decent on-cart expansion (sound, RAM, maybe IRQ) and rely on TIA for onboard sound alogn with the software driven GTIA click channel, especially if you enabled RIOT interrupts in 5200 mode. (interrupt driven CPU modulation of TIA or GTIA channels -the former could include PCM samples and some other flexibility vs fixed volume pulse/square waves via GTIA) probably a simple halt mechanism to allow a 7800/SMS like pause button on the console. (especially facilitated by SALLY having built-in halt/refresh circuitry rather than just RDY) Plenty of options for I/O with the 8 GTIA trigger/select lines, 2 TIA triggers, and 16 RIOT lines. (technically you might have enough I/O lines to push 3 or 4 controller ports, or as an option via a low-cost expansion port -maybe use that same prt for a keyboard add-on, or have other options for remapping I/O lines in different modes -possibly selectable in software- to allow more buttons without analog hacks -map GTIA or RIOT lines to what's normally the analog inputs- or use the analog ports with pull-up resistors and keep the other I/O for expansion -keyboard, added joyports, other peripherals, etc) And once CGIA came around in late '83, you's have ANTIC+GTIA in a single 68-pin surface mounted LCC package for a configuration even closer to the 7800. (but more RAM -if DRAM was used, potentially better onboard sound -via interrupts, and a video ASIC that's 68 pins to MARIA's 48 but also in a compact LLC vs the DIP MARIA uses) And possibly having a parallel version of the JAN ASIC (single chip VCS) that has full 6502 functionality (vs 6507) and support to allow 1.79 MHz for the CPU (keeping TIA and possibly RIOT at 1.19 MHz -RIOT could have ben bumped to 1.79 MHz in 5200 mode from the start if the 2 MHz rated version was used), so just 2 ASICs (CGIA plus the JAN derivative) allowing some pretty substantial consolidation and a motherboard smaller than the 7800. (it's also assumed that the DRAM interface logic is in a dedicated IC by that point, so the entire system would be CGIA, JAN-ish, a small DRAM interface chip, 2 8k DRAM chips, and various capacitors, resistors, voltage regulator, and external connectors -maybe a few added discrete logic chips that would eventually be added to custom logic as well) On the flip side with the Computers, it would have been smart to have a JAN-like chip that omitted TIA and implemented PIA's I/O logic in place of RIOT's, and maybe pushed for integrating POKEY as well. (so you'd have CGIA, the JAN-like chip, and POKEY or nothing else at all but DRAM interface logic and a bunch of simple discrete components -plus FREDDIE once that came around, perhaps merge that MMU logic with the DRAM interface logic as well) That very well may have allowed Atari to undercut CBM's prices or at least compete directly in spite of the lack of vertical integration. (though they really should have pushed to buy/merge with a smaller vendor like Synertek back in '79/80, though '81-82 still had plenty of potential for that -Synertek was bout by Honewell by that point, but other options should have still existed -or maybe even buying Synertek from Honeywell) But yes, after the 5200 and then the correction with the 7800, that 3200 option was long past, let alone by the time the Tramiels came in with the 7800 design frozen for production. (though the potential to consolidate the A8 as well as the 7800 -via a modified JAN- would still apply) Yes, Curt still needs to update Atari Museum, but both he and Marty (Wgungfu) have a good amount of documentation and related notes on the subject from Atari Inc at the time. The MICKY project (Lorraine/Amiga chipset) was to be launched in late 1984 close to the time of the 7800 as their new super-high-end video game console with computer expansion support emphasized. (the 2600 Jr would appear at the same time as the budget console with the 7800 positioned as the "normal" new/current mainstay machine) The MICKY console would then add computer expansion with up to 128kB of RAM in 1985 (per the contract), and in '86 they could launch a full standalone computer and unlimited expansion for the console. (again, per the contract) Amiga shafted them in June of 1984 just days before Warner pushed for the split and sale to Tramiel (having previously attempted a complete sale with various buyers -including Tramiel- but without success). IIRC Amiga had been delaying the promised LSI chips for a while already and then finally threw in the "failed prototype" excuse claiming they couldn't get Lorraine to work and returinging Atari's investment with interest. (which an Atari employee apparently accepted without knowing that was not an acceptable option per the contract) Had Morgan continued things as they were, he probably would have sued Amiga/Commodore and possibly switched emphasis back to the Rainbow chipset and other in-house projects. (abandoning MICKY) No, Amiga cheated Atari Inc and jumped ship to join Commodore before Warner contacted Tramiel for the split offer. The Amiga contract was dead as soon as Atari Inc cached the check (a mistake by management somewhere in Atari), but it was still a substantial breech of contract and outright lie on Amiga's part to weasel out of the contract. (Lorraine WAS working at that time) Hence Morgan would push a law suit as Tramiel later did, if not with quicker and more favorable results for Atari. (the suit would launch sooner, Atari would be much better organized, CBM would have no grounds for a counter suit, etc) Again, a smooth transition to Atari Corp with Morgan's plans continuing and careful reorganization should have meant very close to the same thing as sticking with Atari Inc alone, and may have even been better in some respects. (finally cutting out Warner's bureaucracy, but with trade-offs in balancing Morgan and Tramiel's management -at least keep Morgan in the Short run to smooth things out- and you'd lose some advantage with a separate Atari Games -but could have maintained a very positive relationship nonetheless -plus, they almost certainly would have pushed for Atari Inc's advanced computer designs and software developments over the still embryonic RGB/ST design as it was in mid '84 -given the hardware was from mid/late '83, they probably could have pushed for a good bit more consolidation from '84 to the time of the '85 launch -and keep another console for later, that and there was GCC's offer to push and updated MARIA into a 68000 based machine as well) Warner ruined that with the horrible management of the split. They no only shot Atari Corp in the foot with that, but they hurt themselves as well due to their retained stake in the company.

I think we've got enough good older keyboards in storage to not have to resort to buying any more. (pretty much kept all but those that were truly broken -even kept some of those for a while- or just poor quality) Both the noisy/springy ones as well as smooth ones. (though one of the noisy ones has iffy cursor keys, might be fixable though, but it got to the point of being unusable for keyboard based games ) Crossing back to the topic at hand: it would have been a great idea for Atari Corp to offer higher-end PC class keyboard for the higher end ST models (not sure what the MEGA keyboards were like, but they don't look much different from the plain ST ones -doesn't mean they're not much better internally though), and it looks like they may have actually pushed for that with their Atari PC line. (they PC-1 looks like it had an Atari branded version of the classic extended layout AT keyboard design, but again, that doesn't mean it's as good inside -the PS3/4/5 and ABC keyboards look to be pretty good quality too) That, and Atari Corp should have been pushing such desktop models from the start, especially if they wanted to cover the higher-end business market along with the home market. (offering both compact MST/PC-1 pizzabox form factors with limited internal expansion along with big-box desktop and possibly tower form factor systems would have been awesome -and standardizing even low-end models with a low-cost, but flexible general purpose expansion port would have been extremely helpful as well -both for simple plug-in modules and 1090XL like expansion boxes, or possibly a different form factor for the pizzabox systems) Actually, the PC-1 seems to have a modular floppy drive as well, not integral to the case and possibly easier to replace. (having room for 2 internal drives would be nice, but at least the ability to more easily upgrade to HD floppies internally on the MST would have been nice -and leave multiple internal drives to the big box models)

The lack of compatibility can often be well worth the sacrifice if it truly allows substantially higher performance and cost effectiveness. (the 7800 architecture was not only limited by development time and low cost constraints, but by being tied down to VCS compatibility -you could have a significantly more capable machine in mid '84 at similar cost if they didn't have to worry about compatibility) OTOH, you can also have an extremely tight design with direct evolution of older hardware allowing highly efficient compatibility along with enhancements. (the 1980/81 3200 design seems to be in that range with the evolved STIA -and later consolidation should have merged STIA and FRANTIC a la CGIA) The 5200 in general specs and feature set could have been very cost effective and should have been cheaper to produce and sell than the A8 or Colecovision, but for whatever reasons, it ended up a mess on a motherboard larger than the 1200XL, massive heavy plastic case that made it heavier than the 400 (with its considerable aluminum castings and multi-board 1979 design) and have a larger footprint than the 800 even. A lean and clean design based on Sally(6502c)+ANTIC+GTIA+POKEY+16k DRAM for 1982 could have been very cost effective and should have launched at or possibly below $199 SRP. -The motherboard should have been more compact and consolidated than the Atari 600 prototype (no BASIC or OS ROM, no PIA, no PBI, no MMU) and given the A8 was dropping to 2 controller ports, they probably should have kept to 2 ports as well (in that layout, they could actually have enough I/O lines from GTIA and POKEY -key and pot lines which could be hacked as I/O lines- to allow fairly conventional 8-way digital controllers with added buttons -possibly even using the VCS type pinout with analog modes supporting the same VCS paddles as well as allong the VCS joyticks to be used if you wanted). -8k DRAM chips were still a little more expensive than 2k ones, but the added consolidation should have been worth it even in '82 (and would pay off dividends as RAM prices dropped) so just 2 8k 4-bit DRAM chips vs 8 2k 1-bit chips. (there's a reason the C64 and 1200XL opted for 8k DRAMs) -The expansion port should have been removed, but added expansion signals should have been added to the cart slot, not only support for RAM expansion and sound input, but perhaps better general provisions for the VCS module to be simpler and cheaper. (the composite video input line obviously, but maybe they could even have had expansion lines to directly interface the 5200 controller ports -which would now be pin compatible with the VCS- to the cart slot and to RIOT and TIA onboard the VCS module -you'd need 14 added lines to connect the necessary I/O and analog lines for such, but it should have been worth it in general, plus you could move those expansion pins to outboard connections like the 7800 or SNES to keep the cost of normal games down, that and/or have logic that remapped existing cart signals for the VCS module mode -or have a cart slot with expansion limited to RAM and sound support and add an expansion port again, but have it cost optimized and oritented at providing VCS interfacing for I/O, sound, and video, maybe even allow the SALLY CPU to act as the VCS CPU with an external clock source and cut the VCS unit down to just RIOT and TIA and a bit of added logic -and in any case, have the 5200 power supply and 5V line on the cart/expansion port strong enough to power the VCS module) -Cutting the cart slot back to ~32 pins with 7800 type expansion support (RAM and sound, IRQ would be nice) and adding a compact, dedicated expansion port (probably a cheap PCB connector) aimed mainly for the VCS adapter would have made a lot of sense and also allowed a form factor for the adapter module such that you wouldn't need to remove it to play 5200 games. (more like the CV but more compact and cheaper since the expansion port would be allowing the use if the 5200 controller port connectors and CPU -and later VCS modules could use the JAN ASIC instead of RIOT+TIA, or a specific version for the 5200 with the 6507 cut out of the die and fewer pins to reduce cost -around the same time, you'd have CGIA also allowing further consolidation of the 5200's internal chipset) That's actually probably what Sega should have done for the MD rather than sacrificing cost/performance with the far from ideal internal compatibiltiy: especially since they required an external (mostly passive) adapter on top of that. (ie cut out the Z80+RAM and SMS VDP block from the main VDP die to allow more internal features and consolidation -more color, RAM, sound hardware, etc- and build up the cart slot with the necessary lines to allow piggybacking of the MD's I/O and RGB encoder -audio input is already on the cart slot- as well as the power supply strong enough to mesh with an embedded SMS on the adapter module -or cut out some expansion from the cart slot and move all that stuff over to the side expansion port, though it could have been more efficient to remove that port in favor of the cart slot having all expansion -as it is, the side port offers nothing over the cart slot and is actually weaker as it lacks much of the address space or analog genlock support) In any case, the 5200 didn't do anything close to that and was an inefficient mess, the controllers mirror that too: odd corner cutting in some areas, but added cost in others. :daze: OTOH, a better "quick fix" solution to the situation of the 3200 taking longer than they felt acceptable could be to just tack on TIA and GTIA rather than building STIA, so very much like the 7800 except using ANTIC+GTIA instead of MARIA. (they could either stick to the planned SRAM of the 3200 -2 kB 8-bit SRAM chip, 1/2 of what the 7800 has- or move over to DRAM like the 5200/400 -added logic, but cheaper RAM costs and could pay off in the long run by far with further price drops and integrated circuitry replacing the logic used to interface the DRAM initially- plus, they could have enabled RIOT interrupts in 3200/5200 mode for some neat added effects, especially use for doing modulations and high res square waves with TIA -or 4-bit PCM samples for that matter- as well as making better use of the 1-bit GTIA channel for an additional square/pulse wave channel at fixed volume -so you could have 2 normal TIA channels and a RIOT+CPU modulated GTIA channel, so better onboard sound than the 7800 -plus they could invest in designing some low cost embedded sound chips to put on cart for some later games, perhaps using POKEY as a starting point and cutting that back to just the audio block and shrinking the die to fit into perhaps a 20-pin skinny DIP, maybe 18 pins if you cut IRQ and made the registers write only, or maybe even 16 pins if you allowed it to run off a single clock input -not sure if GCC ever considered that route for GUMBY, but I'd think that would be the obvious choice given their partnership with Warner -get the schematics for POKEY and maybe some engineering assistance from Atari to accelerate development of a low-cost sound chip rather than starting from the ground up, especially since it would have the same features as POKEY sans the external timer/interrupt functions and could thus allow more faithful ports of A8 games as well as new games using TIA as well; I don't think GCC actually did that though, and I wonder why since it looks like a very good option on the surface)

Wow, that's really interesting, I missed this earlier, but these anecdotes really point toward some issues I hadn't heard before with the marketing issues in Europe/UK. (especially in regards to the Atari Inc years with the 8-bits -unless you were too young to remember ads from ~'81-84) I knew Warner/AInc did a poor job of really catering to the EU/UK market (from cost/form factor to supporting tape media, to 3rd party/home software development support, etc), but hadn't realized they were also lacking in advertizing. (though the advertising issues would be even more substantial in the US where the market is even more integrated with advertising and without the same potential for viral marketing as in much of Europe)

It was both; what's so hard to figure about that. It's like with PCs once lower-end clones appeared, a full range of uses. (the Tandy 1000 would be one of th first to rally offer that in an attractive manner and with some good marketing too; a shame that they didn't push for distribution outside of Radio Shack outlets) No, the mistake was not offering it in a definitively wider array of loadouts and form factors from the start. There was no reason it shouldn't have been both a business and home/casual computer (as PCs became/still are), and if it wasn't marketed as a business machine, there's no way it would have sold as well as it did early on. (too expensive, especially in Europe; 8-bits were still the definitive casual/home computers of the time, and that didn't change in Europe until the late 80s transitioning into the early 90s) The Amiga was the same way, though they also screwed up the marketing as well as offering it in an array of form factors from the start: The ST needed to have desktop models and higher-end models in general from launch or soon after. (faster CPUs, expansion ports, perhaps FPU options, RAM expansion, internal disk drives, provisions/options for an internal HDD, etc, etc) The console form factor and closed box design hurt the ST in the upper end of the market early on. (albeit they did things like making 2 disk drives look like a desktop form factor machine and such, but that's a bit sloppy compared to a real desktop -big box or pizza box- form factor) The Amiga started off only with the pizzabox form factor with some decent expansion support (albeit some things resorting to CPU piggybacking), but not marketed well for the business market alongside niche graphics/workstation markets and didn't have a low-end console format model available until '87 as Atari didn't have a destop until the '87 MEGA either. (and both the MEGA and 1986 A2000 failed to offer faster CPUs out of the box or FPUs) CBM made the bigger mistakes by far with the Amiga and mess of things like the Plus/4 and other crap muddying the waters: Atari had much less funding to work with and a weaker market position and Commodore had both in spades in 1985, yet they managed to screw it up big time. When I was a student, the Atari 520 ST was $500, the Amiga 500 was $800 and the Mac 512 was $2000. The ST was in color. The Amiga was even more colors. The Mac was black and white. I didn't find the interfaces to lean better in one direction over the other. But I thought Macs were laughably over-priced relative to what you got. There were stores where I could buy software for all three easily so that wasn't an issue. Also the ST also had a very good for the time Monochrome monitor option. Not only that, but higher-res mono than the mac at 640x400 70 Hz refresh. (and the cheaper option for a bundled system -at least for early models, though not good for games or graphic design stuff obviously) The ST (and XE) keyboards were never my favorite. But I was (and am) able to use them quite well. The Mac (at the time of the ST launch) didn't even have cursor control keys, function keys, or even a numeric keypad. Yuck. But maybe it goes well with a one-button mouse. Not to mention Apple's stupid step backward with the current gen iMac keyboards (don't get me started on their mice . . . ). They went from some pretty nice full-throw full-sized keyboards in the late 90s/early-mid 2000s on the iMac/eMac ranges, but then went with cheap-o worse-than-average laptop keyboards (or about the same as macbook keyboards) with the slimline aluminum mounted crap in the last few years. (NOT fun taking my video editing and programming classes on those) :daze: I'll take a VIC-20 keyboard over that, OK not a 400 membrane board, but that at least looks cool. Heh, even the average XE/ST keyboards are nicer than those, though I'll give the current gen iMac boards the benefit for having moderatley better tactile responce. (springs rather than mushy Atari Corp boards, but the throw and feel of the keys is better on the Atari stuff, at least to a fair extent -which is a joke for the iMac ) At least they didn't go back to the ridiculously small 80s Mac 64/128k type keyboards though . . . I haven't gotten a chance to try an XL keyboard, but the absolute best computer keyboards I've used are some early 90s higher-end/business class PC-AT extended layout keyboards without the "sproing" tactile/audible response of some IBM boards, but still the very smooth and nice feel to it. (only DIN-5 connector too, though I thin we were using it with a PS/2 adapter later on, or maybe just that old AT era case with the built in DIN-5 port we've had in use on and off since the early 90s -right now it's an auxiliary machine in the garage with a K6-2 running win2000 . . . actually with a PS/2 to DIN5 adapter for a PS/2 keyboard ) Since the majority of users couldnt take advantage of the College discount then you need to really think about the $2k is cost most users for a Mac. The 1040ST w/color monitor was $999. First computer to deliver a meg of memory for under $1k. Mono monitor was $150 and Spectre GCR was $250. You can then run all the Mac software natively and when you wanted color do that also. The Mac was a bit more portable though I will give you that. Weren't the dedicated mono monitor bundles cheaper than the color monitor ones? (I don't think there were ever grayscale 15 kHz sync monitor options, but that would have been a good cheap option for lower end users wanting a display compatible with the lower res modes that much software required, like some old VGA compatible mono monitors -let alone a multi-sync monitor, but that would be getting more costly again -or for that matter, a composite monitor and a switch on the ST to disable colorburst for RGB quality grayscale like CGA/TGA could do -also important for RF users for that matter -otoh, a cheap RGB monitor should have been less expensive to produce than a similarly cheap composite monitor since composite requires the added decoder/filtering circuitry to convert that to analog RGB vs just buffering circuitry for RGB+sync input) Or you could buy a standalone ST (or some bundle sans the monitor) and look for a used RGB monitor to use instead. (especially if you had a decent local used computer warehouse -my dad got a ton of our stuff from those sorts of places when building our home PCs in the early 90s -and up through to about 4 years ago for that matter; probably would be currently if we were updating our computers like we were then) Undoubtedly, at least from a technical aspect and cost/performance. The only thing close to it in the PC world in those regards was the Tandy 1000 line, but aside from having decent PC compatibility at an affordable price (and some models offering GEM pack-in -some others offering the simple deskmate DOS shell-like GUI) it wasn't that amazing: for games that supported the specific features, it was the best PC for games up to the end of the 80s with Adlib+EGA games (and only because of Adlib, though you could argue the Tandy DAC would one up that as well), but game support was hit and miss. (and otherwise, you'd drop down to CGA) You brought it up before, but one of the biggest limitations (also shared with other Tandy machines) was being tied only to Radio Shack distribution. (though that may have been a benefit to the TRS-80 in the late 70s, it didn't stay that way for very long) Of course, the Tandy 1000 was also tied down (hardware/software wise) by the PC standard (aside from the tweaks following the PC Jr graphics and sound), so it was limited in pure cost/performance as such with the advantage of DOS and semi-IBM hardware/BIOS compatibility. (unlike the ST which was tied down to nothing but the short development cycle and cost restrictions) Atari offered some pretty nice PC clones in the late 80s too, a shame those didn't get pushed more. (especially as the ST fell out of favor in the US -Europe wouldn't really favor the PC until well into the 90s though) Commodore probably was in an even better position to push PC clones, but they missed that opportunity. (they probably could have pulled off a custom motherboard PC-1 like design with their vertical integration -vs Atari who couldn't compare with cheap off the shelf parts and thus switched to the PC-3/4/5 and ABC designs -albeit the PC-3/4/5 also meant full big-box desktop machines with normal modular drive bays and multiple internal ISA slots and VGA out of the box for the 4/5 -SVGA for ABC -the PC4 actually would have made a pretty decent game machine into the early 90s with an added sound card) Actually, aside from the out of the box sound, the Atari PC-1 (and others) were better values than much of what Tansy was offering in 1987/88. Hmm, actually, what might have been interesting is if they'd started offering models with onboard sound as well. (perhaps clone Adlib's YM3812 interface and add a bare 8-bit DAC mapped to be compatible with Covox/etc -maybe upgraded to DMA later on)

If it's '78, then you'd have to settle for a PET, Apple II, or TRS-80 model 1 since the A8 wasn't launched until late '79. It has a flat membrane keyboard and only 16K of RAM. Who in their right mind would run a business on that? But 16k was a LOT for '78: the Apple II, TRS-80, and PET were offered with an entry level 4k memory with up to 48k for Apple and Tandy or 32k for the original PET models. Of course, the A8s bumped that up to 8k minimum and later 16k. (the high-end TRS-80 Model II business machine was 64k out of the box with a full 4 MHz Z80A, 250/500 kB 8" DD floppy, and 80 column text to boot -for a hefty price tag, of course)

http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/152112-sneak-peak-amiga-atari-design/ (a lot more scattered in other topics too, sierra, gaza, rainbow chipset with silver & gold, etc) Unfortunately it's been a LOT longer than 2 weeks and there's still not update on Atarimuseum AFIK. There's also the 3200 from '80/81 that was canceled in favor of the 5200: http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/156916-atari-ss1000-sylvia/ (unlike once thought, it was NOT an odd unconventional system with a "10-bit" CPU, but apparently a fairly evolutionary derivative of the VCS merging in some of the A8 hardware -namely ANTIC while presumably adding GTIA like functionality to STIA if not boosting things beyond what GTIA can do)

Not so much like the XM, but yes Atari Inc had plans for exactly that: a 7800 in a box to plug into the 5200. (makes most sense from a marketing/PR perspective to bring over 5200 users and look good for the press -and even from a business perspective in as far as getting 5200 users to convert formats -of course, by the time Warner and Tramiel worked things out over the GCC contract, it didn't really matter anymore) There were even some working prototypes, including some mock ups and preproduction models even: http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/167048-atari-7800-adaptor-for-atari-5200-at-pax-east/ "maintain aspect ratio" doesn't necessarily mean it aspect corrects for what a normally calibrated TV will show. (for several emulators, it means square pixels -very few emulators offer realistic NTSC aspect ratio modes, but a few do -and all such modes require antialiasing since you're scaling the pixels) And yes, 3.58 MHz pixels are pretty wide, but not 2:1 aspect ratio wide.

One of the real tricks to getting good TIA music is catering to the limited pitch/frequency resolution or happening upon existing music that falls within (or close to) those limits. (some games seem to remix the music a bit to avoid sour notes -I wonder if that could have been done with Gyruss) It also would have been interesting if some developers give the option to allow music only modes for both hardware channels dedicated to music. (ie sort of like EU computer games with "music or SFX" except some cases might merit a "music and SFX" option as well -a lot of cases probably would actually, if not most, set up with both channels used for music but cutting out one to play FX as needed -something that far too few EU computer games offered and almost none offerin it as an option: ie games that pushed SFX with music usually didn't have a music only option and games with a music only option didn't usually have a music+SFX option even though that should have been an obvious preference that many other games pushed by default at the expense of music) For 7800 exclusives, they could have catered carefully to TIA to create interesting/catchy tunes that still avoided sour notes within reason. (there's a line between making the music more complex at the expense of straining things a bit vs staying within the limits for simpler music) This is one of the best TIA chiptunes I've heard: http://battleofthebits.org/arena/Entry/Lobbyists/3691/ But yes, Midnight Mutants has some of the less unpleasant sounding in-game music on the 7800 using TIA.

Here's how I understand it: even though GCC was developing Atari product, their contract was with Warner, not with Atari. So when Atari was split off from Warner and sold to the Tramiels, the rights to the GCC product (particularly the launch titles they developed for the 7800) didn't come with it and had to be renegotiated. Yep, and that's one of the prime examples of the dual manage bureaucratic mess that Atari Inc/Warner was at the time. The crash probably did a lot to hurt that too, but the biggest issue was, once again, Warner's crap mangement of the split. (a normal transition with thing being distributed in an orderly manner, Morgan's plans continuing and/or adapting to the Tramiels', etc, etc -keeping the 7800 fully on scedule as well as a working relationsip with Atari Games, retaining some of the console programmers -possibly following Morgan's downsizing plans in general with much more selective layoffs, then the stuff with the Advanced Technologies division, the Amiga contract CGIA -could have possibly ended up with a faster and more favorable outcome on that one, let alone if Atari Inc had rejected the check in the first place and if CBM had no grounds to counter sue with Atari Corp using all in-house AInc ATD hardware) The mess from the split almost certainly hurt the A8 line as well, and probably put them in an even worse position against CBM for the 1984 sales season. (after the unfortunate halt in late '83 that also caused them to miss the holiday sales season -especially with the 600 and 800XL in quantity) It was an issue over who was to pay GCC for the initial work: Tramiel had thought the purchase of Atari Consumer would mean the 7800 stuff coming over along with it, but Warner didn't do that. (again, one of the main problems from Warner's sloppy management of the sale/split/transition) With a proper transition, Atari Corp could have been much healthier in general, much less or even no delays, better relationship with AGames and possibly continued relationship with GCC, much cleaner completion of the downsizing started by Morgan, and quite possibly use of the existing (and very powerful) 16-bit AInc computer projects (hardware and UNIX based OS plus in-house "Snowcap" GUI). It's interesting that "they were desperate to find 7800 developers". If I hadn't gone "off the grid" right after IM was released, I wonder how different things would have turned out. Computer Magic was, at this time, late 1988, early 1989, insolvent, or so I was led to believe. I can't imagine they wouldn't have JUMPED at the chance to develop more games, nor would they have ignored me, as I had the most knowledge about my own development system. I didn't leave them on bad terms, neither, except for the "pay me to fix IM or nothing happens" thing. They were more desperate for 3rd party licensed developers of which they got none other than 1 or 2 games from Activision. in-house or 3rd party commissions were a separate issue as Nintendo had no authority there (officially -ie aside from even more illegal strongarm tactics like witholding ROMs from developers to worked with Atari, etc). I'm not sure if they ever pushed for European developers, but that might have been some good out of the box thinking on Katz's part. (ie beyond his route of pushing for computer game licenses when Nintendo had exclusives for many of the hot arcade games -especially from Japan) Though I still kind of like the idea of the A8 game machine somewhat like the XEGS but basically a 600XL inside. (that could have been pushed ahead during the time of indecision over the 7800) "Doing the 5200 right" as Lennard later called the XEGS was an interesting idea, but one that would have made FAR more sense in '84/85. It would be stupid to pour all of one's own finances into a business entity that is unproven. Obviously, he knew that, and is probably still rich because of it. Is it not standard practice for Corporate bosses to keep their personal finances separate from the company? What's "woe is me" about any of that? Hadn't he already poured a ton of private funding into forming TTL in the first place? Throwing around even more (to the point of risking personal bankruptcy) would really defeat the purpose of acquiring Atari at all. (especially with the massive debt they took on as part of the agreement) He could have instead have invested that in buying up Amiga Inc outright when he had the chance (unattractive as he still had much to invest for distribution/production/etc) and putting the rest towards securing manufacturing agreements and a distribution network for TTL, or kept going with the RBP alone and avoid investment with Amiga. (perhaps push harder for fining a chip vendor to partner with more tightly or even merge with -Honeywell might have been interested in offloading Synertek after their heavy decline from the video game crash ) But, again, the real problems were from Warner, not Tramiel and the 7800 delay/dispute is only one small facet of that mess. (hell, with a proper transition under Tramiel from Warner, Atari Corp could have actually helped along Morgan's reorganization and finally definitively cut away the mass of red tape tied to being part of Warner's bureaucracy -and I can't imagine Morgan's efforts to mold Atari into a lean and clean company wouldn't have been attractive to Tramiel other than perhaps pushing a bit harder for the ATG computers rather than Morgan's stronger emphasis on the entertainment size -in either case it would be a balance and strong sales in one area would push more to favor that over others as time went on) I believe the portable TG16 had one of those as well. I always wanted one back in the day. Funny thing is that these portable add-ons would have still worked until just a few years ago. Now they're just collector's items. The GG actually had composite+mono AV in (via 1/8" mini jack), so it could still be used as a monitor. (and for analog cable broadcast)

Honestly, it's a HUGE difference. Try drawing a Mario that looks just like the arcade, colecovision, or NES. He'll look like a big-nosed freak. Look at the Monsters on Coleco Pac-Man collection vs the 7800 version. Both great games, but the 7800 can't produce the roundness nor the monster bottoms accurately, in an area that would fit between two corridors. It really does make a difference. I love my 5200/8-bits, but I have always been disappointed by the 160 resolution, as it looks obviously blocky. (And is the same as the 2600) I was especially disappointed when I saw that the original 7800 Ms Pac-Man monsters were the same as my 5200. These things made a big deal to me back then... I would say it DOES... And the Coleco and NES are only 256 resolution! There's absolutely MASSIVE trade-offs though, the CV's color and graphics capabilities are extremely constrained, even heavy trade-offs against the A8, let alone the 7800's much more flexible color/sprite capabilities. (the 7800 has some significant advantages over the NES for that matter) Good art design is a big part of it too, and catering to pixel aspect ratio is important in all cases. (including the NES and CV where pixels are still a good bit wider than square -MUCH more so in PAL where even the 320 wide C64/A8/Amiga pixels -or others at 7.16 MHz- are very slightly wider than square -ST is slightly taller than Square and MUCH taller than square on NTSC TVs -custom calibrated monitors are a separate issue, though also tend to be tall due to removing overscan evenly as with the Amiga and CGA -or various other 320x200 modes including VGA 13h) I'm not sure all of the above pictures are properly scaled to depict true NTSC resolution. (many emulators show A8/7800 pixels too wide as such, with 160 res being 2x1 pixels on a 320x240 screen -or scaled up from there- where it should actually be narrower than that; likewise many NES/CV/etc emulators will use pure square pixels instead, thus not making the pixels as wide as they are on real TVs -both 3.58 MHz/160 and 5.37 MHz/256 pixels are between 1:1 and 2:1 PAR with 3.58 being roughly 1.72:1 and 1.15:1) Again, it's a shame that the 7800 didn't offer a 5.37 MHz mode with more flexibility than 7.16 MHz 320 pixels would allow, or short of that, maybe allow added flexibility with 7.16 MHz clipped to 256 pixels wide and more overscan (like the CoCo among others -apple II does that at 280 pixels wide), let alone allowing the full-featured 160 pixel res set to 7.16 MHz (and thus more than 1/2 the screen as horizontal overscan/boarder, but great for vertically oriented arcade games or other cases), though the latter could also have been great (if not better) in 5.37 MHz with 160 pixels and ~35% horizontal boarder and NES/SNES/CV/etc shaped pixels. (given how much 7.16 MHz tends to artifact in NTSC, especially with video encoders and TVs of the time, offering only 3.58 MHz and 5.37 MHz dot modes would have been preferable, and having 160 pixels and full color/graphics capabilities in 5.37 MHz mode would be great -having all 3 would be great too though- actually, allowing 256 pixels -or a bit less even- for 3.58 MHz could mean making a game with zero horizontal boarder and possibly easing H-scroll since you'd hide the edges off-screen) In any case, with a bit of tweaking, you can make good trade-offs for lower res stuff, let alone games designed for the system in the first place. (or more custom tailored to it). Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD-ok15kdZA And again, that's a conversion of graphics not tailored to the resolution vs something like Giana Sisters on the C64 which was designed for that resolution. And, of course, the 7800, A8, and C64 versions of Donkey Kong look much better than the CV version, in spite of the lower resolution. (or the fact that the 7800 version is a rather bare bones/hacked conversion of the NES game rather than a direct arcade conversion focusing on the 7800 specifically -same for Mario Bros) All systems also suffer from varying degrees of artifacts in composite video or RF, or the additional washed-out color of the 7800 due to the mechanism used to short TIA and MARIA video together. (avoiding the need for any sort of switching mechanism) The NES has some nasty dot crawl, but clean RF (and the dot crawl isn't very noticeable on poorer/blurry TVs). The NES game was a later, higher-budget game though, and still it's pretty funky with flaws: namely the really choppy movement of the ships in formation and the occasional amount of flicker. But back to the original topic: they WERE planning MARIA as an add-on for the 5200 in the form of the 7800 module. (a rather good marketing/PR move to bridge the gap for 5200 and allow it to be phased out more smoothly) It was a smart move to improve PR and brand loyalty for 5200 owners (with the 5200 being discontinued), especially if offered at tight price (or maybe a rebate with proof of purchase of a 5200). I agree on the vertical module form factor, maybe they could have made it into something more like Curt's XM or such without adding to cost.

One that can't get away with NO shielding at all. They probably would have used it for C64s in the US too if the FCC would have allowed it. (it wouldn't have been a bad idea for Atari to do the same with the VCS for that matter ) Are you even sure any US model VICs had paper shielding? In Japan and parts of Europe you didn't have to deal with any RF shielding as such. (not sure what the Sinclair machines had to do when coming over to the US though) That was also a major problem with the A8 line, pushing for FCC class C when they needed to make it much more cost effective ASAP for the European market, and for that matter could/should have made the 800 non-TV compatible and class A compliant more like the Apple II/etc as the "real" computer with the 400 being the only one to deal with the VCS RF casting on steroids. (for that matter, they also should have redesigned the VCS to be cheaper for the European market -or push that for the Japanese market as well; first step would be removing all shielding, but then making a smaller/cheaper case and other modifications closer to the Jr's form factor) Yes, except for many, their products were anything but cheap. (ie when the C64 was new in Europe, it was a high-end machine while the Spectrum 48k was even considered fairly mid-range in price and the only "cheap" machines were the ZX81 and such -even the VIC and spectrum 16k weren't "cheap") And in any case, CBM having "cheap" machines didn't start until the VIC. The PET line was very solidly built (overbuilt is more like it) though the price was fairly competitive for the time. (better than the contemporary Apple II, closer to the TRS-80) It's a bit of a shame they didn't balance both the higher-end/professional oriented end alongside the mass market consumer end though. Apolloboy has one and it's rather nice. A lot like the late 70s/early 80s casios. (I've got one of those) There were plenty of nice CBM calculators on the market from what I've seen, nothing to put it behind Casio or TI in terms of form factor or functionality. (do a search for all the models from the period if you want a better idea) Some of the really early ones were a bit bulky, but that was true across the board. (by the time they switched over to in-house/MOS chips -and TI entered the field as well as Japanese companies pushing in harder, more compact "pocket" calculators were already very common -that happened before the switch to LED even -there's a lot of compact pocket calculators using nixi tubes instead, see below) http://www.christophlorenz.de/calc/casio/cm-602.php?l=en (that's very similar to my ~1976 Casio personal mini, like this: http://myweb.cableone.net/gmeador/images/blog/casiopm.jpg and inside a similar model: -quite a bit slimmer than the '73 one but still with a tube rather than LED display) Some of the CBM adding machines were rather ugly. (not sure what to compare those too though)

What about the leverage CBM had over MOS, and just because they paid 10M doesn't mean they couldn't have outbid Atari/Warner in '76. The main advantage of the C64's graphics was the sprite capabilities, though the much greater flexibility of colors per scanline (at 320 or 160 res) was also significant. (but a massive trade-offs compared to well optimzied 5 color/line A8 graphics with tactful use of DLIs -a shame the A8 didn't use externally indexed colors or CRAM though -using RIOT for CRAM might have been interesting, especially since PIA was only used for the 16 joystick I/O lines and could thus be replaced with RIOT -with the bonus 128k SRAM and interval timer, the latter would have been great for interrupts independent of POKEY, including software modulation of the GTIA channel at 16-bit frequency res ) Are you sure the US model VIC had a cardboard RF shield? The one I've got has plated steel sheeting. (I know some C64s used cardboard in Europe and had overheating problems -UK and some others had no shielding iirc, but some had tighter requirements -albeit short of the FCC and thus making cardboard attractive where steel sheet was unnecessary)

The existing distribution network was the biggest flaw of Atari Inc in its heyday, though by the time Tramiel came with Atari Corp, that may have been rectified to a fair extent. (or the split may have screwed that up too) As for Arcade games, yes, Atari Corp had IP of all arcade games produced up to mid 1984, but not any after that. And 1. nearly all those old games that had already been ported to home consoles (one of the more notable exceptions would be Tempest), and 2. even with Atari Games licenses, there wasn't a ton that would have added. (again, much bigger issues tied to funding and 3rd party support) Had Warner managed things right, they could have done both. . . (as Morgan had planned) So? Un-drop it. Better yet, release the redesigned 5200 under a new name and advertise it as 5200-compatible. Kills two birds with one stone - gets away from the failure of the 5200 and its clunky hardware, yet maintains compatibility with the existing 5200 game library and some of the better peripherals (like the trackball and the 2600 module) while moving forward. And essentially keeps their computer and console architectures unified, since the 5200 is practically identical to the 8-bit computers. Yes, possible, but tricky (marketing wise), and you've still got the 7800 muddying the waters. (test market, hype, 5,000 machines stockpiled, etc) Though maybe they could have carefully positioned it with provisions for the 7800's release. (but if the 5200 was perking up alongside the 2600 in mid '85, that might have favored the cancellation of the 7800 altogether) And you'd need to go well beyond the 5100/Jr for real cost effectiveness. (albeit they could have done that in parallel with the XE consolidated redesigns) Losing CGIA was a pretty big issue too, and if they could have pressed that into production, it would have been rather significant. As above, another option would have been a directly compatible game computer based on the 600XL. (even more attractive due to direct cross compatibility with A8 computers and reducing the number of unique platforms for Atari and 3rd parties to support or publish for) Hell, with a built-in keyboard, they could have even gotten around some of Nintendo's licensing restrictions that only allowed computer platforms as the exception. (with a computer defined as having a keyboard -that's what happened with Tetris iirc) I've thought that for 20 years. The 5200 should have been a monster success for Atari. Pity about the crap pack in and the even crapper sticks! Again, Atari had MUCH bigger issues than the 5200. The 3200 or 7800, or a truly well designed 5200 wouldn't have stopped Atari's downward spiral and the bloated market. (it might have softened the blow, but not solved the real problems) It probably would have been a much better idea to do something more like the XEGS (or just release the 600) back in 1982, not only cutting into the higher-end console market (as the 400 was intended to but too expensive early on) but also cutting into the hugely competitive low-end computer market with a better product with better software (and potentially better marketing) than the VIC, TI99/4a, or others. (having an even lower-end derivative of the 600 with a cheap membrane keyboard and a "game computer" orientation could have cut even deeper -maybe even push for a more compact form factor or re-use the 600 case directly) Problem is, by that point Nintendo was well-established, with a cheap 8-bit console, with developers locked in and with all the floor space in a slew of retailers. Atari needed something on the market by Christmas 1985 - the STs came way too late (unless they'd concentrated on making a 68000 based videogame system first, and then turned it into a computer later, although I don't think the market would have supported a $400 videogame system at that point). Yes, but Atari was still notable on the market with a significantly stronger market share than Sega and strong profits from the ST sales (mainly in Europe) with a peak towards the end of the 80s. Atari's position with the exceptionally strong computer market in Europe could have bolstered things for sure (especially strong software support), and as Sega showed under Katz and Kalinske, good marketing could win over the market. (luckily, NEC didn't push for that at all when they had the resources and position to be the Sony of the 4tf gen console market) Hell, if it hadn't been for Katz, the Genesis would have been much weaker in the US market too. What does that have to do with anything? The Tramiels also made out very well from the liquidation of Atari Corp in spite of Sam's blunders, and unlike Commodore, Atari Inc never went bankrupt. But in any case, Warner/Time Warner, was a totally separate company at that time and Atari Corp had little to do with it. (other than still having some stock -which they'd have been paid for in the liquidation -since the company was sold off for profit rather than collapsing in bankruptsy) Atari Corp's "implosion" (or downward spiral) didn't start until 1989, up to then it was up and up. (and the 7800 even managed to sell 3.77 million units in the US alone in spite of the limited funding -most sales were in '87 and '88 -almost 3 million in those 2 years alone; actually that peak in '88 would point to '89 being a very good time to launch a next gen console to keep the momentum going -like a cut-down STe derivative with some tweaked enhancements in some areas as swell) Investing in computers was a very good idea though, it was the mess of the split that ruined other opportunities. (like using the much more advanced existing Atari Inc 16-bit chipsets and OS, let alone following on with Morgan's reorganization plans) WTF? The 1200XL was the opposite direction of the cost-cut XE models. (using the 600XL form factor would have been the lowest cost option short of new cases) However with that first line of though: if they were going to invest in cost reducing the 8-bits with a new form factor, why not push the XEGS out at the same time? (ie 1985, not '87 and with 16k like the 5200/600, if not as a followon for a quicker repackaging of the 600 in late '84) And, of course CGIA would have been quite significant as well. I'm sure there wasn't a ton of R&D going into the XE line, it pretty much used all ready-made Atari Inc hardware, the motherboard PCBs and casings would have been the only new changes. (and both should have paid off by far with the lower production costs) Actually, it might have been cheaper to stick with the 600XL tooling, but just change the internals. (maybe use a cheaper keyboard too) It also may have reduced confusion with the XE range being different machines. (ie more obvious that they'd be fully compatible with the previous XLs) What??? 1987/88 was more or less the peak of the ST, and any apparent decline in the US was probably more due to the surge in European demand taking precedence. Putting priority on the XEGS would have been a bad idea for sure, and the Panther and jaguar came under Sam's watch, after Atari had entered its downward spiral. In terms of the ST, you had updates to the MEGA line, the STE, TT, MEGA STE, and fianlly the Falcon. (now, they may have made mistakes in the evolutionary design of those systems -I think they did in several areas, too conservative at times, not enough at others- but they WERE continually advancing things) The Transputer was a complete waste of resources too. (pushing a TT class workstation 2 or 3 years earlier would have been much better) The ST line was going to be niche in the US market though, and as such they should have focused on establishing and maintaining a lead in that niche. (in Europe they needed to support it as a general computer though) But they could have pushed the PC line much more in the long run, a shame that didn't happen. (they had some pretty nice range of machines on the market in the late 80s too with the PC-3/4/5 and ABC) And they were selling millions of STs a year as well as millions of 7800s (in '87 and '88 at least), millions of 2600s, but not millions of XEs unfortunately. (of course, the vast majority of those sales were in Europe_ They should have had 10/12/16 MHz models from the start with console and desktop form factors, or at least by '86 (maybe just 8 and 16 MHz), and a wider range of machines including those in the workstation class (but still of the same architecture) with some offering FPU sockets and introducing fast RAM buses (ie a 2nd bus separate from the shared graphics/general bus), and '020 and '030 models sooner. (probably should have added hardware scrolling and possibly a YM2203 ASAP and made it a base standard -discontinuing the old models- as well as offering upgrades to early adopters) All models should have at least had a general purpose expansion port, and preferably, an internal design facilitating drop-in upgrades for certain components. (OS ROM already did, but a socketed SHIFTER and CPU among other things would have been nice) The STe should have had the YM2203 on top of DMA sound and 4bpp dual playfield modes (vs the Amiga which could only do 3bpp dual playfield) and perhaps a full 8bpp mode with 256 colors. (preferably with packed pixels -or chained bitplanes like VGA, or for that matter, drop the dual playfield mode in favor of just the 8-bit packed pixel mode and a blitter that took advantage of the faster manipulation possible with packed pixels -including fast page DRAM accesses) And as it was, with the TT appearing in 1990, they should have had a low-end derivative of that with a 16 MHz 68k and blitter (preferably a 16 MHz one like the MEGA STE, let alone one actually designed to take advantage of the TT's 64-bit video bus), and that should have been the MEGA STE (with a lower-end version in a Falcon/STFM form factor), and maybe a mid-range model with a 16 MHz 68EC020. Albeit, everything from '89 onward was Sam management. (Jack retired in late '88 and had been transitioning out for most of that year iirc) Albeit, things like expandability, introducing faster CPUs, better off the shelf sound chips, and BLiTTER on lower-end models (let alone simpler/cheaper hardware scrolling inside the SHIFTER) would have been under Jack. (hell, a stop-gap STE like machine in '88 with 16 MHz 68k -perhaps optional, YM2203 -maybe add a simple direct-write DAC or an ASIC with a few DAC ports as such -short of DMA sound, and BLiTTER could have potentially better combated the Amiga's price drop and DRAM price hike -ie models with less RAM could have more features and thus be more competitive- and gotten support for the new hardware sooner)